I liked Google Wave, it was good for the sort of collaboration work I do quite often - working on specification documents. Better than a live document. I was annoyed when they killed it off as I was just starting to see more use for it.
I'm not complaining. The original question was "Everything has to exist within a class, does it not?". It may be moot, but it is interesting to know what is going on.
No, we're ok with it, thanks for asking though. The American Revolutionary War doesn't really feature in our social consciousness as it does yours, we're not taught about it at school (or much about the British Empire as a whole). History for us happens between 1066-1700 and 1918-1945.
Well, you're not quite correct. When you run irb you're in an Object singleton class:
irb irb(main):001:0> self.class => Object irb(main):002:0> def add5(x) irb(main):003:1> x + 5 irb(main):004:1> end irb(main):005:0> method(:add5) => #
You don't need to know about the object, but it is there.
Re:Wrong. We in industry are very upset with Ruby.
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think this has anything to do with Ruby itself. Although I've seen plenty of issues, Rails is engineered well enough, and in the right hands it does the job. What you're saying is that there are far too many programmers who can't program, and they tend to gravitate to languages where you get up and running very fast - Ruby, PHP, Javascript (although I've met them in all walks).
I would agree. I've interviewed many programmers with years of experience who can't a) read a pseudo code program and run it in their head and b) write out the simplest of problems without reference to the Internet. "Team leader at their last project? Steer clear", but I'm not always listened to.
I don't think Ruby is dying though, quite the opposite. I think it is becoming boring, and better for it. Startups have been taken over, Rails applications are now in the enterprise running surprising applications.
It does bother me. When I was younger I often debated religion and those people had more fire and vigour - but I never felt like they were nut jobs who wanted to set me on fire.
she feels it easier to lose a faith than to gain a faith later on in life
I feel that it should be in you like a passion, not something you learn or lose over time and vaguely acknowledged, otherwise it's no better than the people who aren't religious but say they're spiritual (like my mother).
The problem is I feel passionate about it, so I want everyone to either agree, or argue strongly against me, but not to say "oh well, everyone has a point of view" and get on with their lives. I'm sure one of these is healthier, not sure which. Hell, even YOU lot are being reasonable about it in the slashdot comments, it's frustrating.
Fair enough, but is it a religion then or do they have no religion, just a cultural heritage? I could liken that to Anglicans in Britain - I don't think they really believe in god, but they do have a very strong belief in having a cup of tea and a biscuit. If they made that gospel then that would the sort of non-offensive organised religion I could buy into.
What bothers me, as an atheist, is apathetic religious people. I overheard a conversation between two mothers in the playground today while picking up my kid. One was Jewish, the other Christian (Catholic I think), and the Jewish mother was saying how their daughter really wanted a Christmas tree, and they weren't against it, but they didn't want the hassle this year. They went on to talking about how their kids would find their own way in religion as they grew up.
WTF I thought. If you're not that fussed about it why bother being religious in the first place. They make it sound like loyalty to a car brand. "Oh yes, we didn't want to buy him a Ford, we're GM people, but little Johnny insisted".
There is no god. But if there was, it'd be pissed off.
I moved country, from the UK to New Zealand and it was the best thing I ever did.
I moved again from NZ to the Bay Area, and I'm not regretting it for the experience, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to head back to New Zealand in as short a time as possible. Your sig is pretty accurate.
Those countries (Norway, Denmark, Korea, New Zealand) stand in contrast to those countries who adopted a policy of "tough on crime" during the same period (the US, Britain, France).
I don't know much about Norway, Denmark or Korea, but New Zealand has been taken over by the tough on crime crowd and now has a high incarceration rate.
This wording is comparable to the way stupid people understand evolution. "The giraffe wanted to eat the leaves high on the tree so it grew a long neck". Nobody had these conversations. Folks were just trying to get shit done. Capabilities have been added to browsers, but not always driven by the needs and requirements of those making the websites. Look at AJAX - it was an ActiveX component accessible from IE and it took quite a long time before the common use of it was realized. It was not a case of the secretive cabal of web designers getting together and dreaming it up to combat the free world of desktop programs.
And much of this has been user driven. When webmail become popular no one was systematically breaking into houses and deleting all desktop email clients from people's computers in order to force them to use a web based application. I'm not arguing that it is a well informed decision either (I use a desktop email client).
No. I used Chrome for a few years there but I got unhappy that it was the only closed source application I was using on a daily basis. So I moved back to Firefox and have found it a good experience. The only gripe I have after 9 months is that the dev tools feel slugish.
I'm even using Firefox on Android and find that better than Chrome.
Tony Blair started the rot when his Labour government introduced the "internal market", forcing every medical episode to be recorded and costed.
Interesting, I didn't know that. It seems that the downfall of any public institution is when bastard elements of capitalism are introduced in the name of efficiency, resulting in the removal of efficiency.
I've lived in three countries, the UK with a full free health service, New Zealand with a partially free health service, and the US, and I've had contact with all of those health services for myself or my family.
The NHS in the UK is the best all round. You see your doctor, you feel that they care about you, they have the backing of a good hospital system to do anything they need to do. It can be slow to get treatment, but you can always go private if you can afford to do so, but when I had problems they were fast enough.
The system in NZ is the second best. The doctors care, and there is a smaller population so it feels more intimate. However, that smaller population means less in the way of economy of scale, so treatment might not be available or you have to travel further. Pharmac negotiates drugs on a national level so that is good for the tax payer, but maybe not for the individual that requires an esoteric cancer treatment. As with the UK you can always go private if the public system is too slow, and I've had an occasion where that was the case.
I don't really know where to begin with the US system. On the positive side its nice and shiny. Individual people do care and help you out, but it doesn't feel like the system as a whole gives a shit. There is a lot of paperwork (absent from the previous examples). There is an abundance of choice and options. When you are sick (or your kid is sick) you don't want choice or options. I was shocked that the health coverage from my company was only subsidised and I still had to pay on top, and I'm utterly confused by the insurance options and savings whatnots (you put money into an account for health stuff?). It is a complex and scary system, but at least if it turns out I have the wrong coverage I can flee home to sanity.
I hope they keep the NHS free. Adding fees will ruin feel of it. I know what they'll do if they charge fees is they'll create a health card for low income people who can't afford the cost. But it is a needless barrier to treatment, if they do that why not just raise tax?
I agree with the sentiment she is expressing. If we are all invested in the system then we'd fight to make it better.
But while I'm living in the US I'll be sending my kids to a private school. I went to public school in the UK and hated every second, if I can do something for my own kids such that they can actually enjoy waking up every day then I'll do that, bad person though it makes me. Not to mention quite a bit poorer.
In the small town in New Zealand where we lived for the last few years the choice between public and private was much closer, more the flavour you enjoyed than misery vs happiness.
You misinterpret my reply. In fact this spying issue is more important to me personally than gay marriage, I just chose that as a recent example of positive personal/social liberty.
I've been a Kiwi for about 18 months (do you get to adopt the nomenclature? Alright NZ citizen). You take the ups with the downs, we just legalised gay marriage, an up in my opinion. This is a down. I don't think many here care about this issue. On the up side though I think most people view our security service as somewhat inept blunders.
Maybe it'll encourage governments to develop saner tax rules.
I encountered something similar with Timebank in NZ - I cannot give my time if I'd be doing anything related to my job. You can see the point of view of the taxman here (it'd be equivalent to cash in hand), but it is insane.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked Google Wave, it was good for the sort of collaboration work I do quite often - working on specification documents. Better than a live document. I was annoyed when they killed it off as I was just starting to see more use for it.
Seems to be getting you a bit worked up :)
I think you might be mistaking humourously poking fun for a grudge. It works well with America because you're sensitive about it.
I'm not complaining. The original question was "Everything has to exist within a class, does it not?". It may be moot, but it is interesting to know what is going on.
No, we're ok with it, thanks for asking though. The American Revolutionary War doesn't really feature in our social consciousness as it does yours, we're not taught about it at school (or much about the British Empire as a whole). History for us happens between 1066-1700 and 1918-1945.
Well, you're not quite correct. When you run irb you're in an Object singleton class:
irb
irb(main):001:0> self.class
=> Object
irb(main):002:0> def add5(x)
irb(main):003:1> x + 5
irb(main):004:1> end
irb(main):005:0> method(:add5)
=> #
You don't need to know about the object, but it is there.
I don't think this has anything to do with Ruby itself. Although I've seen plenty of issues, Rails is engineered well enough, and in the right hands it does the job. What you're saying is that there are far too many programmers who can't program, and they tend to gravitate to languages where you get up and running very fast - Ruby, PHP, Javascript (although I've met them in all walks).
I would agree. I've interviewed many programmers with years of experience who can't a) read a pseudo code program and run it in their head and b) write out the simplest of problems without reference to the Internet. "Team leader at their last project? Steer clear", but I'm not always listened to.
I don't think Ruby is dying though, quite the opposite. I think it is becoming boring, and better for it. Startups have been taken over, Rails applications are now in the enterprise running surprising applications.
It does bother me. When I was younger I often debated religion and those people had more fire and vigour - but I never felt like they were nut jobs who wanted to set me on fire.
she feels it easier to lose a faith than to gain a faith later on in life
I feel that it should be in you like a passion, not something you learn or lose over time and vaguely acknowledged, otherwise it's no better than the people who aren't religious but say they're spiritual (like my mother).
The problem is I feel passionate about it, so I want everyone to either agree, or argue strongly against me, but not to say "oh well, everyone has a point of view" and get on with their lives. I'm sure one of these is healthier, not sure which. Hell, even YOU lot are being reasonable about it in the slashdot comments, it's frustrating.
Fair enough, but is it a religion then or do they have no religion, just a cultural heritage? I could liken that to Anglicans in Britain - I don't think they really believe in god, but they do have a very strong belief in having a cup of tea and a biscuit. If they made that gospel then that would the sort of non-offensive organised religion I could buy into.
What bothers me, as an atheist, is apathetic religious people. I overheard a conversation between two mothers in the playground today while picking up my kid. One was Jewish, the other Christian (Catholic I think), and the Jewish mother was saying how their daughter really wanted a Christmas tree, and they weren't against it, but they didn't want the hassle this year. They went on to talking about how their kids would find their own way in religion as they grew up.
WTF I thought. If you're not that fussed about it why bother being religious in the first place. They make it sound like loyalty to a car brand. "Oh yes, we didn't want to buy him a Ford, we're GM people, but little Johnny insisted".
There is no god. But if there was, it'd be pissed off.
I moved country, from the UK to New Zealand and it was the best thing I ever did.
I moved again from NZ to the Bay Area, and I'm not regretting it for the experience, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to head back to New Zealand in as short a time as possible. Your sig is pretty accurate.
Those countries (Norway, Denmark, Korea, New Zealand) stand in contrast to those countries who adopted a policy of "tough on crime" during the same period (the US, Britain, France).
I don't know much about Norway, Denmark or Korea, but New Zealand has been taken over by the tough on crime crowd and now has a high incarceration rate.
This wording is comparable to the way stupid people understand evolution. "The giraffe wanted to eat the leaves high on the tree so it grew a long neck". Nobody had these conversations. Folks were just trying to get shit done. Capabilities have been added to browsers, but not always driven by the needs and requirements of those making the websites. Look at AJAX - it was an ActiveX component accessible from IE and it took quite a long time before the common use of it was realized. It was not a case of the secretive cabal of web designers getting together and dreaming it up to combat the free world of desktop programs.
And much of this has been user driven. When webmail become popular no one was systematically breaking into houses and deleting all desktop email clients from people's computers in order to force them to use a web based application. I'm not arguing that it is a well informed decision either (I use a desktop email client).
No. I used Chrome for a few years there but I got unhappy that it was the only closed source application I was using on a daily basis. So I moved back to Firefox and have found it a good experience. The only gripe I have after 9 months is that the dev tools feel slugish.
I'm even using Firefox on Android and find that better than Chrome.
Don't discourage, it is quite readable as is.
So when you already have friends over at your home, what do you drag out to do for fun?
A bottle of wine
Tony Blair started the rot when his Labour government introduced the "internal market", forcing every medical episode to be recorded and costed.
Interesting, I didn't know that. It seems that the downfall of any public institution is when bastard elements of capitalism are introduced in the name of efficiency, resulting in the removal of efficiency.
In the British NHS, bureaucrats outnumber doctors and nurses by a hefty margin.
I found this: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-managers I don't know the bias of this site though. But it mainly seems to be a suggestion of the right wing press about the NHS bureaucracy.
You can seek a second opinion in the public systems, but that's a path, not a choice between providers.
I've lived in three countries, the UK with a full free health service, New Zealand with a partially free health service, and the US, and I've had contact with all of those health services for myself or my family.
The NHS in the UK is the best all round. You see your doctor, you feel that they care about you, they have the backing of a good hospital system to do anything they need to do. It can be slow to get treatment, but you can always go private if you can afford to do so, but when I had problems they were fast enough.
The system in NZ is the second best. The doctors care, and there is a smaller population so it feels more intimate. However, that smaller population means less in the way of economy of scale, so treatment might not be available or you have to travel further. Pharmac negotiates drugs on a national level so that is good for the tax payer, but maybe not for the individual that requires an esoteric cancer treatment. As with the UK you can always go private if the public system is too slow, and I've had an occasion where that was the case.
I don't really know where to begin with the US system. On the positive side its nice and shiny. Individual people do care and help you out, but it doesn't feel like the system as a whole gives a shit. There is a lot of paperwork (absent from the previous examples). There is an abundance of choice and options. When you are sick (or your kid is sick) you don't want choice or options. I was shocked that the health coverage from my company was only subsidised and I still had to pay on top, and I'm utterly confused by the insurance options and savings whatnots (you put money into an account for health stuff?). It is a complex and scary system, but at least if it turns out I have the wrong coverage I can flee home to sanity.
I hope they keep the NHS free. Adding fees will ruin feel of it. I know what they'll do if they charge fees is they'll create a health card for low income people who can't afford the cost. But it is a needless barrier to treatment, if they do that why not just raise tax?
I agree with the sentiment she is expressing. If we are all invested in the system then we'd fight to make it better.
But while I'm living in the US I'll be sending my kids to a private school. I went to public school in the UK and hated every second, if I can do something for my own kids such that they can actually enjoy waking up every day then I'll do that, bad person though it makes me. Not to mention quite a bit poorer.
In the small town in New Zealand where we lived for the last few years the choice between public and private was much closer, more the flavour you enjoyed than misery vs happiness.
You misinterpret my reply. In fact this spying issue is more important to me personally than gay marriage, I just chose that as a recent example of positive personal/social liberty.
I've been a Kiwi for about 18 months (do you get to adopt the nomenclature? Alright NZ citizen). You take the ups with the downs, we just legalised gay marriage, an up in my opinion. This is a down. I don't think many here care about this issue. On the up side though I think most people view our security service as somewhat inept blunders.
Maybe it'll encourage governments to develop saner tax rules.
I encountered something similar with Timebank in NZ - I cannot give my time if I'd be doing anything related to my job. You can see the point of view of the taxman here (it'd be equivalent to cash in hand), but it is insane.
That's not the supply. An infinite number of books full of random words wouldn't have much demand.